The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition seeking the quashing of FIR filed under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. This Court held that taking photos/video of a complaint in the police station cannot be said to be an act constituting an offence of 'spying.'
Brief Facts:
The petitioner has approached the court, seeking to quash the FIR registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
According to the petitioner, he was called to the Police station for enquiry regarding the complaint against him. He asked for a photocopy of the application filed against him or permission to take a photo of the said application, neither of which was given to him. Following this, he took a photo and video of the said application and the same were found in his mobile phone when the concerned officer checked it. Consequently, Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act was invoked against the petitioner.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel argued that the Petitioner was called to the police station and was asked to click photos of some documents to show his advocate. After seeking permission to do the same, when the petitioner took the photographs, a constable started abusing him and booked him under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel of the Respondent did not dispute the legal position that 'Police Station' is not covered under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the Official Secrets Act appears to have been malafidely invoked by the concerned Police. By no stretch of the imagination, section 3 could have been gathered in the facts of the present case.
The Court held that the act of taking photos/video, in a manner as happened in the case at hand, cannot be said to be an act constituting an offence of 'spying.' The word 'spying' has serious connotations, and the police must be mindful.
Further, the Court observed that 'Police Station' does not come within the definition of 'prohibited place,' as defined in the Official Secrets Act.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, quashed and set aside the FIR registered against the petitioner for the alleged offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. Furthermore, the Court directed the State Government to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner.
Case Title: Zishan Mukhtar Hussain Siddique vs The State of Maharashtra
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Hon’ble Justice R. N. Laddha
Case no.: CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.3894 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Anees Shaikh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. J. P. Yagnik
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
